BEST report confirms urgent need for new resources for federal S&T

A major new report on the role of the federal government in performing science and technology (S&T) is breathing new life into the push for increased funding for in-house research capacity. The Council of Science and Technology Advisors (CSTA) has weighed in with an eye opening assessment on the state of federal S&T, calling for urgent action on a number of fronts to avoid what it views as a rapid deterioration in the government's ability to fulfill its S&T mandate to support the health, safety and economic well-being of Canadians.

The advisory body to the powerful Cabinet Committee of Economic Union put forward five recommendations which it contends are essential to reverse the decline in federal S&T capacity and capabilities, or risk seriously hampering Canada's standing in the global economy.

That's a reassuring message for senior bureaucrats who laboured hard in three working groups last year to build a case for revamping federal S&T capabilities, That initiative was led by Dr Marc Denis Everell, an ADM at Natural Resources Canada (R$, September 29/99). The document - dubbed the BEST report for Building Excellence in Science and Technology) - was released internally to government late last year and finally released publicly March 22.

Awareness of its contents within the system helps explain the relatively subdued response to the recent federal Budget, which did not commit significant new resources to federal S&T (R$, March 17/00). Those close to the issue say that while the government's silence may indicate little action in the short term, the fact that two parallel initiatives have drawn similar conclusions has sparked a renewed sense of optimism and provided powerful ammunition for a vigorous new campaign in the months ahead.

"We're quite happy with it (the report)," says a senior federal official. "The strength of having an outside advisory group helps make the case. A number of recommendations oriented towards departments are already in the process of being implemented."

The BEST report confirms the widespread belief that the federal S&T system is veering dangerously close to a state of crisis, requiring swift action and additional resources to avoid a dangerous collapse in capability and a reneging of responsibility. Inadequate funding has produced a litany of problems such as aging equipment, R&D projects operating below critical mass, and an aging workforce without a sufficient skills stock in the lower ranks necessary for replenishment. The result is a precipitous decline in the federal role as an R&D funder and performer.

It calls for the rebuilding effort to be guided by the principles of alignment, linkages and excellence, resulting in a federal S&T system that's horizontally structured and geared towards those activities deemed to be in the public good. Those roles include support for decision-making, policy development and regulations; development and management of standards; support for public health, safety, environmental and/or defence needs; and, enabling economic and social development. And once again, the government is being asked to "aggressively follow through" on a commitment it made in the 1996 S&T Strategy: "Departments and agencies will regularly and systematically assess whether their performance of S&T might be better carried out by others".

The arduous task of diagnosing the post-program review state of S&T departments was compounded by a lack of data on exactly what the government does in the field. The report concludes that it will be next to impossible to determine how to restore and rebuild S&T capacity until government has an accurate picture of what capacity is required to fulfill its mandates. Federal S&T mandates, in turn, are evolving at a rapid rate as the pace of change in the global S&T environment accelerates.

That observation has already led to the creation of an Industry Canada-Statistics Canada working group that will examine ways to more effectively mine available data and determine what other data should be collected to improve policy making. A second working group has also been established to pick up on the capacity issues developed last fall.

"It will be difficult to work out what the next steps are, especially for people outside the system. The concerns over (federal S&T) are very complicated. It's hard to put your finger on a clear example of where the system has broken down," says another senior official, adding that the recommendations of the 1996 S&T Strategy have been implemented unevenly throughout government. "There's no institutional design and we have had to wait for the CSTA report to say what we've been saying for three years to marshal the support to respond to it."

"The big issue is capacity. We felt that the current state of federal departments has to be responded to in an urgent fashion," says Dr Alan Pelman, chair of the CSTA sub-committee on the federal roles in performing S&T. "This can be seen as either a crisis or an opportunity, but we need to get a handle on why we are here, what we have to do and what do we have to get there."

The issue now is what level of resources the government may be willing to commit to assist in the rebuilding effort. Public controversy over government spending has made many politicians gun-shy over increasing spending after years of cost-cutting, and the CSTA sub-committee preparing the BEST report spent considerable time in the early stages discussing whether there was any role for government in the area of S&T. Finance minister Paul Martin offered an indication of the government's cautious attitude in his Budget Speech, stating that "growth in program spending is projected to be in line with inflation plus population growth" for the foreseeable future.

"There was lots of money in the Budget for S&T but it was mostly all outside of government," says a senior official. There was money for the health and safety (of federal infrastructure) but those are band-aid type solutions."

Details are still confidential on how the $200 million committed for federal infrastructure (including laboratories) will be spent, although Treasury Board has developed a formula and individual departments and agencies have been notified of the "notional allocations" they can expect.

R $